The matter of Angela Rayner's house sale isn't going away.....

TinSoldier

It is exactly as I said. Here:

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/who-can-vote/other-registration-options/voting-and-second-homes

It says:

If you split your time between two homes, you may be able to register to vote at both addresses. For example, you might own two properties and split your time between them, or you might spend time at different family addresses.

Rayner's brother is her family. If she spends time at a different family address she can register there.

Again, even if the time she spend at her owned property was limited, what fraud has she committed? What unjust advantage has she obtained? Whose rights or interests has she injured?

Again, the Electoral Commission says that fraud includes:

*making false statements about the personal character of a candidate
*offering an incentive to someone to get them to vote, to vote a certain way, or to stop them from voting
*interfering with postal votes
*including false statements or signatures on a candidate’s nomination forms
*registering to vote under a false name or without someone’s consent
*influencing someone to vote against their will
*pretending to be someone else and using their vote

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/report-electoral-fraud

Is she alleged to have done any of those things?

But this isn't about where she was registered to vote. It was about the address she put on her nomination form to be an MP in 2015.

I don't understand your point. The allegations, as I understand them, are that she was registered to vote at the property she owned and not the property owned by her husband.

Again. What unjust advantage has she obtained? Whose rights or interests has she injured? Nobody seems to want to answer that question.

Both properties are in Stockport, apparently a mile from one another and both in the same Parliamentary constituency. If she was only registered at one property and voted once what harm has been done? Where's the fraud?

Hearsay: information received from other people which cannot be substantiated and usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

Not seeing something is not evidence that it didn’t happen.

I didn’t see the accident, therefore it didn’t happen is nonsense.

I didn't see Rayner at the property, therefore she was never there is equally nonsense.

I can look out at at my neighbours' homes and have no clue if they are inside or not or which of their family members spend time there ... or if anybody is being charged rent.

Semantically, to let is to hire or rent.

Letting refers to the act of renting out a property. If a property is advertised as "to let", it's available to rent.

For tax purposes, if a property is occupied completely rent free then it falls outside of the lettings regime. It only becomes relevant if a tenant is ‘connected’ to the landlord (a brother would be deemed a connected person) and pays rent at less than the market rate. Then HMRC will enforce rules which centre round the amount of expenses that can be claimed as a deduction from the rental income received.

Perhaps her neighbours are the sort of people who can see someone passing by, and know that they have the latest iPhone?

TinSoldier

I don't understand your point. The allegations, as I understand them, are that she was registered to vote at the property she owned and not the property owned by her husband.

Again. What unjust advantage has she obtained? Whose rights or interests has she injured? Nobody seems to want to answer that question.

Both properties are in Stockport, apparently a mile from one another and both in the same Parliamentary constituency. If she was only registered at one property and voted once what harm has been done? Where's the fraud?

She should have been registered to vote at her permanent residence and should have given notification of any change of permanent residence. If she had let her house to her brother then it could not, during the term of the tenancy, have been her permanent residence. There is no requirement for an unjust advantage to be obtained in order for the offence of giving false information to be committed. The offence is the giving of false information, not fraud.

Hearsay is only relevant where evidence is given in court. The neighbours could be called to give evidence (but obviously won’t) or they could be required to give a formal statement to the police (which is possible).

Angela Raynor has often accused others of lying or fraud so its now her turn to face the music.
I don’t know and neither does anyone else on this forum, what the truth of the matter is, but that’s what this investigation is for.
Just cos I vote Labour doesn’t mean I don’t want any investigations to be done.If this was a tory MP he would be hung out to dry on here.

Oreo

Angela Raynor has often accused others of lying or fraud so its now her turn to face the music.
I don’t know and neither does anyone else on this forum, what the truth of the matter is, but that’s what this investigation is for.
Just cos I vote Labour doesn’t mean I don’t want any investigations to be done.If this was a tory MP he would be hung out to dry on here.

Which is exactly what virtually every Labour supporter on this thread has said. The rumour, gossip, speculation and exaggeration is coming from elsewhere.

I will change the subject, if I may, as we must have done the allegations to death. Something I despise about Rayner is the way she has, in the course of telling how she has come from nothing, made her mother’s illiteracy very public, even telling us that her mother would sometimes bring dog food home for the family to eat because she couldn’t read the label on the tin. It was a sad situation, but her betrayal of her mother in this way is something I find unforgivable and completely unnecessary.

Not exactly changing the subject though …..

In fact, not at all….

Despise? Unforgiveable?

Rayner’s mother has herself spoken openly about her struggles and has given interviews with Angela.

And this:

www.theguardian.com/global/2024/mar/23/angela-rayner-roots-rough-edges-ready-for-power

Her mother Lynn was one of 12 kids born to out-of-work parents. Lynn had never been to school. “I followed the fair,” was how she described her upbringing to her daughter.

If anyone understands the lived experience of poverty, deprivation and lack of education, especially as it affects children and has both the will and (very soon) the power to do something about it - it’s Rayner.

Note the amendment at the end of the article. An earlier version said Lord Ashcroft had said Angela Rayner should have paid capital gains tax on the former council house she bought in 2007; in fact, in his book he set out details regarding the purchase and sale of the property but did not comment on whether such tax was due. If that is so then what is all the fuss about?

Would she have told her story unprompted by her daughter? AR has cashed in on her mother’s misfortune.

The mother didn’t have an education so couldn’t make her own
.decisions ?

If Rayner hadn’t have outed her mother and her problems and inadequacies she would not have been speaking to the press would she?

Every person who has ever written an autobiography describing a difficult childhood, given permission for a biography that does similar, written a novel based on their life (write what you know), written an autobiographical poem, performed an autobiographical song, given an interview where they have spoken about their childhood … has done the same thing. Frank McCourt won a Pulizter Prize for Angela’s Ashes. Only a few weeks ago, the Channel 4 series The Rise and Fall of Boris Johnson began with an episode about his chaotic childhood. The makers has footage and photos of him as a child obtained from somewhere.

This very controversy has been sparked because of an unauthorised biography. Ashcroft is cashing in on dissecting Rayner’s life. Newspapers are cashing in on dissecting Rayner’s life. Do you despise them too?

Angela Rayner is very unusual in doing so well given her deprived childhood. Having worked in child protection for over. 20 years I know how rare that is.
Instead of congratulating her I don’t understand why you are being quite so unpleasant.

You sent a link to an interview with AR. We are not talking about what other people do or say, though this has been the constant way of deflecting criticism of Rayner throughout this thread. My latest post was about Rayner’s cruel exposure of her mother’s problems, in order to further her own cause. She has made the information available because it suits her agenda. She can protect herself. Her mother cannot, she is an extremely vulnerable woman and her daughter has laid bare her woeful (and entirely understandable) inability to care for her family. For any daughter to do that to her mother is appalling. To do it to bolster her public image, emphasising the contrasts with the way she looks after her own family, is shameful.

TinSoldierthank you. I didn’t know if Angela Rayner’s childhood and life leading to being voted deputy leader of the
Labour Party.

GSM if she wants to do all she can to protect children and mothers from the same lifestyle she is right being honest and
you assume she betrayed her mother , she may have had her full support

Exactly, Anniebach. There is plenty of online footage where Rayner’s mother is speaking openly about herself to television cameras about her own struggles and saying how proud she is of her daughter.

GSM I am simple pointing out that many, many other people use broadcast and print media to tell their own stories of difficult family lives. Do you despise all of them and find their behaviour appalling and shameful?

I asked but you did not answer, whether you despise Ashcroft for “cashing in” by writing an unauthorised biography that, by his own admission, he did not research.

I really am very tired of the invective based on unsubstantiated claims propagated by three male Tories who clearly have an agenda. The shame should lie elsewhere.

Her mother may have known or understood little about what was said. Only AR knows the truth. I’m surprised you didn’t already know her background Annie, being such a staunch supporter. I did and you know my politics are not yours. She’s made sure it’s been splashed around. Exploitation of a vulnerable woman.

Does this look like a woman who does not understand what is being said, does not understand what she is saying and is acting under duress?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j7s4zBSi3U

You are fabricating a narrative that isn't there just as Ashcroft, Holden and Daly have.

I have not suggested that she acted under duress. Unfortunately it’s impossible to say whether she understood the reason for the questions or how far her answers might be disseminated. She has bipolar disorder - do you have experience of that? Do you deny that this was done in order to bolster AR’s public profile? If not, why would she have exposed her mother in this way?

That is being ridiculous. It was you who turned the conversation to Rayner's mother which has nothing whatsover to do with capital gains tax or electoral registration.

Rayner is entitled to speak about her life which Ashcroft was not authorised to do. And you still won't say whether you despise him for doing so.

Tories, or in this case a former Tory, Lee Anderson does very little but talk about his own disadvantaged life to bolster his public profile and has also been filmed talking to his parents to describe his background.

I know enough about bi-polar disorder to know that people with the illness are capable of rational thought and behaviour as Mrs Bowen appears to be in that film.

As I said before, I am tired of the invective. You dislike Rayner and despise some of her behaviour. I get it. There is nothing more to be said until the various authorities have concluded their enquiries.

Tremendously patronising post about a woman whom you know absolutely nothing about GSM just to suit your narrative

silverlining48

Angela Rayner is very unusual in doing so well given her deprived childhood. Having worked in child protection for over. 20 years I know how rare that is.
Instead of congratulating her I don’t understand why you are being quite so unpleasant.

Because it provides some sort of weird entertainment?